Then you won't mind providing proof to back up your claims that the acceptance is due to anything beyond evidence.That there is no dissent and that there is a "scientific fundamentalism" circulating around is hard to deny.
Um, no. Wrong. Very, very wrong. No climate model has *failed* to predict global warming unless massively erroneous figures were used as input (inputs are based on actual measurable physical constants, so you know).Some of the arguments against "man-made " global warming stem from the problems associated with climate models. There was even one comment, admitting the por results but suggesting that when all the spurious models were combined, there was some suggestion that global warming was occuring . . .
Oh, and how do you account for the 1988 computer model that *precisely matches* the 20 years of temperature records since?
Where are you getting your information? The Children's Coloring Book Guide to Climatology?Also, the role of the sun is seldom considered. Most seem to think its a ******* lightbulb.
We have extensively examined the sun's effects, and there are several satellites out there right now measuring just that.
Oh, and so you know, the sun's output (as measured DIRECTLY by satellites) hasn't significantly changed in 20 years.
And I have no love of willful ignorance. Their "expert" is a chemist, not a climatologist, and is no more qualified to critique global warming than he is to perform open-heart surgery.They have no love of dogma -- no matter from whom -- there . . .
On top of that, for all his petty and inaccurate gripes about clouds and models, he neglects to note that a model made in 1988 predicted the subsequent 20 years of global climate change PERFECTLY. We're talking within one percent accuracy. And that was a model run on computers with less power than you cell phone.
So, if models are wrong, how can they predict the future with such accuracy?